Short Note : 1. In these two appeals, the three appellants Kaushalkishore Shukla, Navalkishore and Mahendrakumar Pathak have challenged their convictions under section 323 of the IPC for which each of them was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is this. On 11-7-77, in the night. Kailashchandra Jain (PW1), a Lecturer in the Maharaja Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chhatarpur, was returning from the bazar. Near a pulia, ahead of the post office, the three appellants and their associates, armed with iron rods and hockey sticks, attacked him causing injuries on his head, eyes, hands etc., as a result of which Kailashchandra fell down from his cycle and his spects were broken He was removed to the hospital where he lodged the FIR Ex. P-1 at 9-40 p.m. Held: Kailashchandra (PW 1) is the Lecturer in the Maharaja Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chhatarpur. He stated that on 11-7-77, at about 8-p.m., he was going to bazar when the three appellants threatened to puncture his eyes. While he was returning at about 9 p.m., the three appellants assaulted him with iron rods and hockey sticks, Kailashchandra being their Lecturer, there could be no question of mistaken identity, because for a Lecturer to know his students is quite natural. In his evidence, I find nothing of substance to doubt the participation of the three appellants in the assault on him. 3. Kailashchandra (PW1) is corroborated in his version from the promptly lodged F.I.R. The incident took place at 9-15 p.m. and the report was lodged at 9-40 pm. In this report, the three appellants are named with their weapons and it is also mentioned that they had assaulted Kailashchandra Jain. The promptly lodged report lends valuable corroboration to the version of the victim Shri Jain (PW 1). 4. In regard to sentence, both the Advocates urged that the three appellants are young students, their ages being below 21 years. The record disclosed that the three appellant, do not have a happy conduct, because they not only threatened to assault Rakeshkumar (PW 5), but also assaulted their own Lecturer after administering a threat to him of serious type prior to the assault. The most shocking aspect of the whole case is that they being young students, assaulted their own teacher. The record disclosed that the three appellant, do not have a happy conduct, because they not only threatened to assault Rakeshkumar (PW 5), but also assaulted their own Lecturer after administering a threat to him of serious type prior to the assault. The most shocking aspect of the whole case is that they being young students, assaulted their own teacher. If these facts are taken into account, the assault being of a serious type, all the three appellants deserve substantial jail sentence. However, in this case, they are all below 21 years of age and no previous convictions have been alleged against them. The record disclosed that during the trial, the appellants Kaushalkishore Shukla and Mahendrakumar Pathak were in jail between the period 12-7-77 to 17-8-77. Thus they were under custody for about a month and 5 days. The appellant Navalkishore was also under custody for 2 days. These periods can be adjusted against the sentence. In my opinion, the period spent by the appellants under custody, besides substantial fine, shall meet the ends of justice. 5. For the reasons given above, convictions of the three appellants Kaushalkishore Shukla, Navalkishore and Mahendrakumar Pathak under section 323 of the IPC are confirmed. The jail sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to each of them is restricted to the period already spent by them under custody. Besides, each of the three appellants is sentenced to pay a fine or in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Appeals partly allowed.